ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

2 of Circular No.471 dated 15.10.1986, such cases may also be treated as cases of construction for the purposes of sections 54 and 54F of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that, therefore, in view of the above two Circulars, even though the assessee had failed to deposit the money in the Capital Gains Account Scheme on or before

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 68 of the Act. Upon appeal the assessee adduced evidence in the shape of contract notes/bills receipt; payments made through banking channel; contract notes and; copies of passbook of its Demat account in support of it thus asserted its claim of long term capital gain as genuine and correct. Qua the payment made by the assessee for purchase

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

46) and the very fact that such provision was enacted, itself went to show that entities such as the assessee were not previously eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act, because they would invariably be hit by the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, 1961. 26. Finally, in his orders for the A.Ys

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

gains from business and profession’. The net surplus disclosed by the assessee of Rs.2,24,59,203/- in the income and expenditure account was therefore added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the infrastructure

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

46) and the \n32\nvery fact that such provision was enacted, itself went to show that entities such as the assessee \nwere not previously eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act, because they would \ninvariably be hit by the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, 1961. \n26. Finally, in his orders for the A.Ys

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

46) and the\n30\nvery fact that such provision was enacted, itself went to show that entities such as the assessee \nwere not previously eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act, because they would \ninvariably be hit by the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, 1961.\n26. Finally, in his orders for the A.Ys

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

SHRI UMA SHANKER DHANDHANIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(5), KANPUR

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

section 10(38)was liable to be allowed; l) The AO failed to appreciate that the amount received on sale of shares is neither sale nor an advance; m) The amount received, being properly explained, neither being unexplained nor undisclosed; the appellant's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) be allowed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale

NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

capital gain under the relevant section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale